ROWE & HELBIG

[2017] FamCA 219

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ROWE & HELBIG [2017] FamCA 219

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – Where the applicant seeks costs in relation to the substantive parenting proceedings between the parties – Where the respondent’s application was motivated by her perception of the best interests of the children – Where the respondent could not be said to have been wholly unsuccessful – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – DISQUALIFICATION – Where the respondent sought that the judge recuse herself on the basis of apprehended bias – Where the basis of the complaint was that the judge had made findings in the substantive proceedings – No apprehension of bias in the judge hearing the costs application – Application dismissed.

FAMILY LAW – COSTS – JURISDICTION – Where the respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the court to make a costs order – Where the respondent argued that the issue required a jury trial – No trial by jury in the Family Court – Where the respondent argued that the applicant was re-litigating the issue of costs – Where the costs of the substantive proceedings had not yet been determined and the applicant’s costs application was still on foot – The court had jurisdiction to hear the application. 

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 117

Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth) r 19.08

Hawkins & Roe (2012) 47 Fam LR 526
Helbig & Rowe [2015] FamCA 146

APPLICANT: Mr Rowe

RESPONDENT: Ms Helbig

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5421 of 2010

DATE DELIVERED: 11 April 2017

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Rees J

HEARING DATE: 6 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr O’Sullivan of O’Sullivan Legal

THE RESPONDENT: In person

Orders

IT IS ORDERED

1. That the respondent’s oral application for recusal be dismissed.

2. That the Application for Costs filed 19 March 2015 be dismissed.

3. That the response filed 30 September 2016 be dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry of the order in the Court’s records.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Rowe & Helbig has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.02A(b) of the Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.02 Family Law Rules 2004 (Cth).

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

FILE NUMBER: PAC 5421 of 2010

Mr Rowe

Applicant

And

Ms Helbig

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Judgment in parenting proceedings between Mr Rowe (“the Applicant”) and Ms Helbig (“the Respondent”) was handed down on 9 March 2015. On 19 March 2015, the Applicant filed an Application for Costs. That application was deferred pending the determination of an appeal to the Full Court by the Respondent.

2. The appeal was dismissed.

3. The Applicant now prosecutes his Application for Costs. The Respondent opposes that…